A European declaration of war on the United States
The best European response to a new American war is not useless protest, but a declaration of war. A
declaration of war would clarify the historical and future relationship between Europe and the United States. It
should include a reference to the historical background, and a moral justification for the defeat of the United
States - the logical purpose of any war. It should also indicate future policy toward the United States, after its
defeat. Revised 08 September 2002.
The historical relationship between the United States and Europe is essentially a civil war. The United States and Europe do share a common cultural background, but a
common culture does not mean uniform common values. 'Western culture' has no common roots as a unit. It includes ethical traditions with diametrically opposed values,
and that was already true in ancient Greece, which is often quoted as the first source of western culture. There was never a uniform set of values in Europe, or in the
'western world' after 1500. On the contrary, ideological and value conflicts were always present. They seem to have intensified over time, which is logical. New ideologies
and values emerge - and the more propositions there are, the more there is to disagree about.
So it is logical that western culture also brought civil war, ideological warfare, total war, and wars of religion. It is not a monolithic system of uniform values, surrounded
by other monolithic value systems such as 'Islamic values' or 'Asian values'. That vision of the world is a fiction, invented to justify imperial ambitions. Of course there are
people who want a uniform western culture, and claim it exists - but that does not make it exist. Specifically, there are people who claim that the United States and Europe
share a common culture and common values. This Atlanticist lobby in the United States and Europe is itself a political reality, but their claims are fantasy. Certainly the
Atlanticists themselves have common values, but the majority (in both Europe and America) do not see themselves as part of a single 'Atlantic' culture.
There is no geographical reason for an 'Atlantic civil war'. It is a product of differential migration, a specific historic circumstance. A very crude model for the political
culture of the United States is simply, that the European right emigrated to the United States and set up a base there to reconquer Europe. I emphasise that this is a crude
model. European migration to the Americas was driven by all kinds of factors, not least rural poverty in Europe. It produced Canada, Argentina and Brazil, but only one
United States. And of course most of 'the European right' did not emigrate anyway: unfortunately they are still here.
Nevertheless it is a historical reality that specific political and cultural factors shaped the United States, and that it is a unique state with a unique relationship to Europe.
The US-American political tradition has its origin in one predecessor in Europe, and one only: English liberalism. As a result its internal political culture is monolithic:
there is no equivalent of the left-right divide in Italy or France. A large proportion of the (white) population is descended from immigrants who deliberately choose to
leave Europe, either through persecution or through poverty, and who thought they could escape both in America. The resulting mixture of anti-Europe resentment and
belief in American superiority, is not found in, for instance, Brazil or Argentina.
The writing is on the wall for America staying allied with europe for 3 main reasons:
1. Europeans have imported large numbers of Islamic followers who will, in time - take over positions of power and call for the
elimination of every jew on european soil. (This based on all european history since 1901 and the lovely fake jenin massacre
slanders now common in european press.)
2. Europeans will NOT get a decent military because they LOVE their lavish welfare systems, and they love making their children pay
for their mistakes even more. It's a euro thing. Also, The Balkans WILL explode and europe will call AMERICA and blame us whether
we win or lose. America will become disgusted or hostile - the minute europe AGAIN let's war break out in the former Yugoslavia.
(Their backyard is always our problem and our back yard is always - our problem.) Europe will, however, get a viable military the
minute Islamic extremists hit the mainstream of europe. War between America and europe is inevitable someday if you take in the
leftist anti-americanism of now and the Islamic hatred of Israel tomorrow.
And lastly,
3. Europe has had 50 years of American boys on their soil at American expense ( $600 billion dollars a year) while europe benefits
from our military to create an "EU" based almost solely on anti-americanism. From the Marshal plan to American soldiers still being
in europe since 1945 - Europeans are thieves.
There is no other way to put it - they are thieves. The entire reason that Jews are seen as being guilty of "usury" by europeans is
that that call - IS A PROJECTION of what is inside them that they deny, but hate the most. We can wish away this divide with pretty
delusions all we want to; but America and Europe cannot stay allied for America to be healthly.
Americans are, at their worst side - reckless, impulsive and aggressive; but Americans prefer to KNOW someone who can help them
rather than USE someone who can help them. Europeans are thieves from the word "go." It is why anti-jewish anti-semitism has
been so unique to europe. It is why anti-semitism has never been rampant in the US.
Asia will be the next superpower because they have worked for it, and they have the patience to be good at it. Europe will never be a
superpower - because they have never cared about anyone else long enough to even try.
Don't delude yourselves in thinking this rift is going to go away. It's just started.
Comment at Little Green Footballs posted by heidi-ho, 9/4/2002.
The national identity of the United States is also unique. More than in other nation states, it is based on the shared belief in the superiority of the country's political
institutions, such as the Constitution. Most people in other countries have never read any section of their own Constitution: it is irrelevant to their national identity. The
economic system is also incorporated into the national identity, to an unusual extent. If you ask Poles to describe some things which are specifically Polish, it is unlikely
that they would answer: "capitalism". To Americans that is an essential part of their culture - not simply an economic system favoured by the current government.
The United States is also characterised by extremely active interventionist lobbies, which have no equivalent elsewhere. War lobbies in other countries are typically
related to border disputes and irredentist claims agains a limited number of nieghbouring sttates. United States citizens are ready to demand war (and nuclear annihilation)
against many countries, on many pretexts. Not all citizens do that, of course: but the range and vehemence of the war fever is unique. At present it is directed at Islam, the
Islamic world, the Arabs and/or Saddam Hussein - but the same vehemence was directed against Serbs, Serbia, and Slobodan Milosevic a few years ago. In a few years it
could be directed against another, unrelated, enemy.
We should invade their countries, kill their leaders and convert them to Christianity. We weren't punctilious about locating and
punishing only Hitler and his top officers. We carpet-bombed German cities; we killed civilians. That's war. And this is war.
This Is War. We should invade their countries, National Review, September 13, 2001.
JTF's 7-POINT PLAN: How JTF would save America and Israel!
POINT ONE: A ferocious retaliation, including the use of neutron bombs, against all Muslim nations which have in any way aided or
abetted terrorism against American citizens.
POINT TWO: The immediate destruction by the American or Israeli military of all Muslim nuclear reactors, plants and laboratories
developing nuclear, chemical and/or biological weapons of mass destruction.
Jewish Task Force
In the dark days of the Cold War, when the world made grisly sense, American strategists touted the notion of "rolling back"
communism. In fact, we never rolled back much - at least until 1989 - but did our best to hold the line. But roll-back may have been
a strategy far ahead of its time, a concept waiting for more propitious circumstances. It appears to be eminently suited as an
approach for dealing with violent Islamic extremism.
We did not imagine we could defeat Soviet communism starting in Moscow; likewise, Islamic extremism cannot be engaged most
effectively where it was born and bred. We must work our way in from the hopeful, unsettled frontiers, from Africa through Asia, in
the Balkans, and in North America.
Rolling Back Radical Islam, Ralph Peters in Parameters (US Army War College).
Cato, one of the greatest ancient Roman statemen (around 2,200 years ago), used to conclude all his speeches, no matter what
their subject with the following statement: "I also think that Carthage should be destroyed". Today's America needs a modern Cato
to destroy today's enemy - islam.
Comment at Little Green Footballs
The Government of Saudi Arabia, lacking the means to develop its oil fields, invited British and American oil companies to explore
and drill for oil. And when oil was found, and facilities were built to ship the oil, they nationalized (stole) the oil companies'
equipment....
Therefore, it has become necessary to recognise the fact that the Saudi Government, far from being an ally, is in fact an enemy. A
treacherous and deceitful enemy, worthy of utter contempt and ruin, as only American armed forces can bring ruin upon a country.
We should occupy the stolen oil fields, expel every Arab from within 100 miles from an oil well, and kill any Arab which attempts to
approach within 100 miles of an oil well.
Occasionally, the Arabs get something right. They have picked a fight with the "Great Satan", and the Gates of Hell are about to
open wide. Yes, there's going to be Hell to pay, you sorry bastards. Come out and fight us, or hide behind your women and children.
It doesn't matter. You have abandoned Allah's prohibition against making war on non-combatants, and you will find that He has
abandoned you. You have dishonored the laws you claim He gave you. You have sown the wind, and you shall reap the whirlwind.
You are toast, and we will have you for breakfast. Goodbye, it hasn't been good, knowing you.
catotheyoungest.blogspot.com
"You and your Muslim community are the bastards harbouring these terrorist. You use your mosques as Islamic Terrorist funding
centers. We should evict you Muslim scum, burn down your Mosques, and then Nuke Mecca and Medina. Islam has everything to do
with Islamic terrorism, that is why America should do everything in our power to destroy Islam and Muslims before they can do this
type of terrorism again."
On the Message Boards: Anti-Muslim Backlash
As we take out each nation and group responsible for this, let us rejoice and be gleeful at the deaths of our enemies. Let us be
brutal and heartless as we kill them. They already hate us, so let us make the few of them who survive walk forevermore in fear of
us and our anger.
Comment at Little Green Footballs posted by Bob, 9/7/2002.
So although there is no single European state comparable to the United States of America, there are specific factors which separate the United States from 'Europe'.
Anti-Europeanism in the USA, and anti-Americanism in Europe, are an indication that the relationship is not only unique, but is a relationship of contempt, enmity and
hostility. That does not mean that war is inevitable. Europe could choose to simply surrender to the United States, if only by default - and to a certain extent western
Europe has done that anyway in the last 50 years. An explicit choice for war, on the other hand, is clearly an ethical issue.
The moral grounds for war
The moral justification for the war can not be separated from the geopolitical position. The United States is the only remaining superpower. It has sufficient military force
at its disposal to eliminate resistance by any existing nation state to its hegemony. Only a European continental state can inflict a military defeat on the United States. No
other non European coalition can do this. The United States is expansionist in nature. It has - again as a result of its specific origins - developed into a crusading state.
The internal isolationist tradition in the United States is in long-term decline. It is very probable that the United States will attempt to create a world order which it finds
minimally acceptable: a world order of liberal market-democratic nation states.
In other words - unless Europe stops the United States - no other economy than a free-market economy will exist on this planet, no form of state other than a nation state
will exist on this planet, and no form of social life other than a liberal society. No political ideal or innovation, which can not secure majority support in a democracy, will
ever again be realised. All humans will live in a liberal market democracy, no human will ever experience any other way of life, and no artefact or social form will exist,
except those which are compatible with a a liberal market democracy. That does not necessarily mean, that there will be a McDonalds in every village. But the prospect of
indefinite planetary stagnation is far worse anyway, and the possible preservation of cultural diversity can not justify it.
This is the primary moral justification for a war against the United States: to prevent it from fulfilling what probably is its historical destiny. Once a state such as the
United States comes into existence - an expansionist ideological state with unipolar hegemony - it is inevitable in the long term, that it will remodel the world according to
its ideology. Unless it is stopped, that is. There is no guarantee that its 'success' in this respect will ever be reversed.
Marine Gen. Peter , the Joint Chiefs vice chairman, mentioned in a news conference last week that the scope for potential
anti-terrorist action included - at a minimum - Iran, Iraq, Yemen, Somalia, Sudan, Lebanon, Syria, Libya, Georgia, Colombia,
Malaysia, Indonesia, the Philippines and North Korea.
Washington Post, 04 September 2002.
This ethical issue is relatively new. Despite very large empires in the past (some larger that any existing state) no real 'world empire' was possible until the late 19th
century. The technology was simply not available: the intercontinental telegraph and reliable ocean steamers and railway networks were the technological minimum. Their
effect was visible in the 'scramble for Africa' after 1870. Unlimited conquest by small European forces proved possible: the boundary of the new colony was determined
when the troops met the troops of a rival European power, the Africans had nothing to say on the matter. So if there had been only one unrivalled hegemonic European
power in 1870, it would probably have created at least a tricontinental empire (Asia, Africa, Europe). After 1900, in other words, the issue on world empire is no longer
"who can possibly do it?", but "who can possibly stop it?"
The existence of a crusading state on this planet is not in itself inevitable. It is also true, that without a crusading state, without any imperial power, the world could still
develop a uniform order of societies and states. That has already happened in one respect: all existing states are modelled on the European nation states, a global victory
for the nationalist ideology. Nevertheless a crusading expansionist hegemonic superpower exists, and it is the United States, and it is at war already. The ethical issue of
whether to stop it is now unavoidable.
So the declaration of war could include this form of justification, which stand or falls on moral values:
1.The United States as a nation, and the American people, believe in the superiority of their national values, their political system, and and their way of life. They
hold their values to be universal in application (valid everywhere), and universal in their superiority (right and good everywhere they are applied).
2.They regard their own beliefs on this issue as absolutely and self-evidently true, and define their system of values as 'freedom'. In consequence, they are unable
to recognise the legitimacy of any resistance to the imposition of these values. Since freedom itself can not be an unfreedom, and since in their eyes their values
constitute freedom, they tend to conclude that no person can suffer any coercion by the imposition of American values, and that no resistance to them can be
rational.
3.The United States does intend to impose its values by force, even if the force is initially used on some other pretext, or in self-defence. Officials of successive
United States governments have repeatedly stated that they intend to bring freedom, to all or part of the planet. The United States has imposed its value system
on certain other territories in the past, believing that action to be a 'liberation', and a benefit to the population affected.
4.The United States will not cease or withdraw from this intention and strategy, and will not concede limits to its application.
5.The United States will not de-recognise the universality of its values, or accept a territorial limit to their application.
6.The historical consequence of this pattern is, that the United States has indeed imposed its values on successive territories, covering a cumulatively larger
proportion of inhabited territory.
7.The values of the United States, including liberal democracy, liberalism in general, the free market and the nation state, are wrong.
8.Therefore, the prevention of their present and future imposition by the United States is morally legitimate and good.
Obviously, if you think the values of the United States are right, then there is no reason to support this declaration. Tony Blair once described the Kosovo air war as a
"war for values" but he did not say which values. He was trying to suggest that the other side had no values, and that simply by having values, the NATO was in the
right. That might be true if there was only one set of values - but there are many values, which are often diametrically opposed. A war between values - or between their
supporters - is also a 'war for values'. The form of the declaration is designed to produce exactly that.
And what happens after the war? In the event of a US defeat, there are two relevant strategies. One is to preserve the United States, with its values, but ensure it can not
impose them on others - a strategy of containment and demilitarisation. The second option is to break up the United States, in such a way that it can not easily be
replicated, even if its territorial integrity is restored. It would however be futile to try to re-make the United States as a 'European' entity a possible third option. History
has made the United States distinct from, and hostile to, Europe. It is no longer possible to go back to the beginning, and start again with a non-hostile version.
web.inter.nl.net
And this:
My Word - Opinion: Sayed I. Inamdar
Theory cannot be believed
Editor's note: The “My Word” column represents the views of Mr.
Inamdar and not those of ANG Newspapers.
Mr. Inamdar is currently running for the Washington Hospital Board of Directors.
IT is impossible to believe that it was Osama bin Laden, the cave-dwelling father of 20 to
30 children, or the Madrasa-educated Taliban who planned the terrible Sept. 11 incident.
Not even the misguided renegade, fanatic and so-called extreme Muslim group from the
oil-producing desert country.
It is an almost established fact that the executors, but not the planners, involved in the
Sept. 11 tragedy were from a Muslim country. Many had been trained in making bombs to
blow up Western embassies and famous buildings.
The Sept. 11 tragedy and the most meticulously planned incident in human history could
not have been planned by uneducated and fanatic people from the backward Islamic
countries, as most Americans seem to believe.
The well-planned and coordinated event points to an established intelligence service of a
more advanced and capable foreign government that has free access to American
intelligence.
This well-trained professional organization, under the cover of their anti-terrorist
campaign, scheduled and planned to ensure that the four jet planes would fly at the
same time with full tanks, in a precise, timely manner.
They had one liaison in the executor group who communicated with the real planners.
The other executors were given the impression that they would hijack a plane and blow
it up if necessary. None knew the terrible master plan perhaps until the last moment.
It is amazing that all 19 or 20 highly suspicious-looking people passed through security
with whatever they were carrying with them.
It seems unlikely that they could have passed the security checkpoints without some
inside assistance from the real planners. (Conveniently, the liaison person also was killed
and thereby the identity of the planners continued to be secret.)
After Sept. 11, no suicide group or so-called Muslim terrorist has done anything to harm
the American people. They realized the undesired damage done to this country and the
Islamic world, and decided not to get involved anymore.
The planners started looking at their own indigenous associates and
prompted them to plan bombings of Islamic institutions in Los Angeles and Florida. (It is
fortunate that FBI and law enforcement officers were more diligent and captured these
home-grown American terrorists before they had a chance to do extensive damage.
American people should now be on the lookout for the indigenous terrorists rather than
the apparent ones.)
Zacarias Moussaoui was caught before Sept. 11 and is in jail. After a long time, and after
deep thinking, this religious person decided to plead guilty to his involvement but with
one condition: that he be allowed, in front of the judge, to address the American people.
It is believed that he intended to expose the true planners of the Sept. 11 bombings.
Unfortunately, the authorities did not agree to his request. Why? (Subsequently he
retracted his guilty plea.)
Almost one year has passed. Blame is still going on. The American people, with some help
from the administration and media, continue developing the inaccurate feelings regarding
Muslims and the Islamic world, instead of finding out who really planned Sept. 11.
Sayed I. Inamdar is a Fremont resident.
theargusonline.com |
